The Machine at the Heart of Desire: Felix Guattari's Molecular Revolution
Works & Day 2.2 (1985): 63-85
Charles J. Stivale
Wayne State University
[NB, 2002: The link for this essay at the journal Works and Days having gone dormant, I provide the 1985 text here. Many of the essays to which I refer by Guattari have since appeared in translation, and I provide the three main collections (noted with ***) in the Works Cited. Also, portions of this same essay appear in my book, The Two-Fold Thought of Deleuze and Guattari: Intersections and Animations (New York: Guilford Publications, 1998)].
In 1972, the Parisian intellectual scene was jolted by the publication of a rather arcane and lengthy manifesto of sorts entitled L'Anti-Oedipe, Capitalisme et Schizophrénie I (Anti-Oedipus, Capitalism and Schizophrenia [AO]. Of the two authors, only Gilles Deleuze was familiar to the French intelligentsia as a renowned university philosopher who had published works on Kant, Spinoza, Nietzsche, and Proust, among others. The co-author of Anti-Oedipus, Félix Guattari, while less widely known, was prominent both in the French political domain and in the psychoanalytic arena, yet was neither in lockstep with orthodox Freudian practice, nor entirely in synch with the reigning Lacanian alternative to orthodoxy. And while the subsequent collective and individual works of Deleuze and Guattari have received recognition in France, only the translation of selected works by Deleuze have attracted any attention in the American intellectual market place. \1 Thus, the [then] recent translation of essays from Guattari's political and psychiatric activities, \2 while unsatisfactory from several perspectives, is a welcome complement to the better-known Deleuzian corpus already available in English. In this essay, I propose to situate Guattari's contribution to contemporary French thought in light of this [new] edition of translated essays.
As noted in the book's introduction, Guattari worked since the early 1950s as a psychotherapist at the Clinique de La Borde founded by Jean Oury. Given that Guattari's orientation to psychoanalysis was initially practical, his theoretical essays in this domain were inspired by a decade of clinical psychiatry; likewise, Guattari political practice, particularly his participation in the events of May 1968, gave rise to his extensive political writing. Thus, the first obstacle which this edition presents to readers is its overall division into three thematic sections: 1. Institutional Psychotherapy"; '2. Towards a New Vocabulary"; 3. Politics and Desire."
Besides the fact that this seemingly concise, thematic classification of Guattari's writing is entirely arbitrary \3, a more serious objection is that this classification obscures the reader's understanding of Guattari's concurrent psychoanalytical and political development from the 1960s to the present. While the editors do provide footnotes to situate each essay chronologically, the reader attempting to understand the relationship between Guattari's psychoanalytical practice and political engagement is forced to shuffle back and forth throughout the volume in order to reconstitute the influence of each domain of activity on the other. I will therefore lay out a chronological overview of Molecular Revolution, an alternate "map" whose function is solely heuristic, but which will at least provide an outline allowing readers to trace the author's development: 1. The Pre-Molecular essays through 1968), 2. Machine and Desire (1969-1972), 3. Molecular Politics (1973-1978) and 4. Schizo-Analysis and the Global "Molecule" (essays since 1979).
1. The Pre-molecular
In Molecular Revolution, there are only five essays from Guattari's early period, all of which are taken from his first collection, Psychanalyse et Transversalité_ [PT], and the earliest essay, "Transversality," relates to an essential psychotherapeutic concept which Guattari elaborated throughout the 1960s, the nature of the "group" within the psychiatric institution. In two earlier, untranslated papers, "Le Transfert" (The Transfer) and especially "Introduction à la thérapie institutionnelle" (Introduction to institutional psychotherapy), Guattari had already described an "effect of subjectivity" through which a subject affirms him/herself through language on the plane of groups, thereby constituting a "subjective unity of the group" on the social plane. Since the ailing subject is "a citizen first, and individual afterwards" [PT 145], to affect a cure, the subject must shift from his or her exterior, subjugated group association (that is, factory, club) to an institutional subject group constantly interpreting its own position. Guattari's psychotherapeutic position constitutes a critique of the Freudian and Lacanian dependence on totalizing, referential myths (Oedipus, the great Other and the unconscious structured as language) for rearticulation and interpretation of all subjective histories.
Readers familiar with Anti-Oedipus cannot help but recognize herein the seeds of the later manifesto, and can therefore situate "Transversality" in the direct line of this problematic, as an initial sketch of the approach which will become "schizoanalysis": on the one hand, the rejection of the Freudian "castration complex" which affirms, says Guattari, that since "anxiety for the external" (MR 12), and on the other hand, the affirmation of institutional therapeutics whose "object is to try to change the data accepted by the super-ego into a new kind of acceptance of 'initiative,' rendering pointless the blind social demand for a particular kind of castrating procedure to the exclusion of anything else" (MR 13-14). Opposing what he considers as Freudian "signifying logic," Guattari thus foregrounds the social realm as the source from which both illness and cure derive, the former arising from an essentialism in which castration and punishment form the basis of "social reality," the latter produced through institutional therapeutics by subverting the dominant "logic" and by constructing precise, transversal relationships which free patients to recognize the social determination of anxiety.
Guattari then defines the opposition between subject-groups and subjugated groups \4 as "that of a subjectivity whose work is to speak, and a subjectivity which is lost to view in the otherness of society" (MR 14). Guattari affirms that any attempt at group analysis requires the group to enunciate unconscious "group desire" \5 in order "to create the conditions favourable to a particular mode of interpretation, identical...to a transference" (MR 17). This transference must not be fixed, territorialized, but must be one of "transversality in a group," an idea opposed to "a) verticality, as described in the organogramme of a pyramidal structure (leaders, assistants, etc.); b) horizontality, as it exists in the disturbed wards of a hospital, or, even more, in the senile wards; in other words a state of affairs in which things and people fit in as best they can with the situation in which they find themselves" (MR 17). Guattari describes this new concept in terms of a "coefficient of transversality," comparing it to the "adjustable blinkers" worn by horses that allow them the visual range from total blindness to full vision:
"In a hospital, the 'coefficient of transversality' is the degree of blindness of each the each d the people present. However, I would suggest that the offical adjusting of all the blinkers, and the overt communication that results from it, depends almost automatically on what happens at the level of the medical superintendent, the nursing superintendent, the financial administrator and so on. Hence all movement is from the summit to the base. There may,of course, be some pressure from the base, but it never usually manages to make any change in the overall structure of blinders. Any modification must be in terms of a structural redefinition of each person's role, and a reorientation of the whole institution. So long as people remain fixated on themselves, they never see anything but themselves." (MR 18)
As "a dimension that tries to overcome both the impasse of pure verticality and that of mere horizontality," transversality would be achieved in hospitals "when there is a maximum of communication among different levels and, above all, in different meanings.... Only if there is a certain degree of transversality will it be possible - though only for a time, since all this is subject to continual re-thinking - to set going an analytic process giving individuals a real hope of using the group as a mirror" (MR 18, 20). Since this approach explicitly questions power relations as it suggests therapeutic aims, the concomitant political and psychoanalytical implications are evident: "It is my hypothesis," concludes Guattari, "that there is nothing inevitable about the bureaucratic self-mutilation of a subject group, or its unconscious resort to mechanisms that militate against its potential transversality. They depend, from the first, on an acceptance of the risk - which accompanies theemergence of any phenomenon of real meaning - of having to confront irrationality, death, and the otherness of the other" (MR 23).
The corresponding early essays in Molecular Revolution branch from this dual perspective: on the one hand, in "The Group and the Person" (1966-1968; MR section 1), Guattari continues his work in "transversality" by aggressively defining his militant therapeutic approach as an alternative to Communist, bureaucratic (State) and psychoanalytical totalization; on the other hand, "Causality, Subjectivity and History" (1966) and "Students, the Mad and 'Delinquents"' (1969; both in MR section 3) provide explicitly political readings of two historical periods, the former article analyzing "signifying breakthroughs" (coupures signifiantes) from Lenin to Vietnam, the latter examining the "institutional revolution of May 1968." \6
2. Machine and Desire
In an earlier, untranslated paper, "Réflexions pour des philosophes à propos de la psychothérapie institutionnelle" (Reflections for Philosophers on Institutional Psychotherapy, 1966), while outlining the importance of his theoretical work for the study of "group subjectivity," Guattari had already referred to the alterity of the subject as a "signifying machine which predetermines what must be good or bad for me and my peers in one or another area of consumption" (PT 93). He called for new philosophical research which would deter-mine "concepts likely to found a field of reference responding, on the one hand, to the demands of the objective sciences and, on the other hand, to the demands of 'techniques' of concrete human existence" (PT 95). Then, working in collaboration with Deleuze following May 1968, \7 Guattari undertakes this philosophical enterprise himself in the important transitional essay entitled "Machine and Structure" (1969; MR section 2). He first distinguishes structure from machine in an attempt to 'identify the peculiar positions of subjectivity in relation to events and to history" (MR 111). In turn, he derives this distinction from the complementary categories of series" and "singularity" introduced by Gilles Deleuze. According to this model, structure" positions its elements, including the subject or agent of action, in an all-encompassing system of references" consisting of two heterogeneous series which relate each element to the others and thereby enclose the ego-centered subject as but one of many other enclosed elements. In contrast, the "machine is not such a structural representation, but an event or a point of convergence for the heterogeneous series to which the subject or agent of action remains remote, as the "subject of the unconscious" which exists "on the same side as the machine, or better, alongside the machine" (MR 111-12). \8
This distinction leads Guattari to examine the fundamental alienation under capitalism which characterizes the individual's relation to the machine as "radical system of realignment", a castration" of the worker, whose work exists under capitalism as "a residual sub-whole of the work of the machine. This residual human activity is no more than an adjacent and partial procedure that accompanies the subjective procedure secreted by the order of the machine" (my translation; cf. MR 113). As a result, "the machine has passed into the heart of desire, that is, human activity constitutes nothing more than "residual work" or the machine's psychic "imprint" on the individual's imaginary world (Guattari here refers elliptically to Lacan's "object small a"), the subject henceforth locked into alternate relations of conjunction and disjunction vis-a-vis the machinic production. For example, in scientific research, a researcher's discovery quickly extends beyond the individual as his proper name turns into a common noun. This detachment of a signifier from the unconscious structural chain to "represent" the machine "binds the machine to the double-sided register of the desiring subject and of its status as founding root of the different structural orders which correspond to it" (my translation; cf. MR 114). The human subject as adjacent part "is caught where the machine and structure meet" in a system of anti-production relating the different regimes of signifying chains criss-crossing the subject, be it on the factory floor, in scientific research, in literature or even in dreams cf. MR 114-15). Guattari suggests that this machine process "could be a new weapon, a new production technique, a new set of religious dogmas, or such major new discoveries as the Indies, relativity, or the moon. To cope with this, a structural anti-production develops until it reaches its own saturation point, while the revolutionary breakthrough also develops, in counterpoint to this, another discontinuous area of and-production that tends to re-absorb the intolerable subjective breach," thereby eluding the preceding order (MR 117). Guattari concludes that the machine process suggests the possibility of a revolutionary program which would require establishing an institutional machine with theory and practice ensuring that it did not depend on social or state structures, a program which, as a machine for institutional subversion,- should demonstrate proper subjective potential and, at every stage of the struggle, should make sure that it is fortified against any attempt to 'structuralize' that potential" (MR 119).
This revolutionary framework articulates the interlocking
psychic and political planes, the planes of desire and of the
socius, which Guattari and Deleuze will elaborate in Anti-Oedipus;
Guattari's essays corresponding to the
"anti-Oedipal offensive" of the early seventies, many of which are collected in La Révolution moléculaire (RM), all share both the dual psychoanalytical and political program previously enunciated and the development of an extensive vocabulary resulting from the ongoing collaborative effort with Deleuze. For example, while the essay "Money in the Analytic Exchange" (1971; MR section 1) would appear, from its title, to have a primarily psychotherapeutic orienation, Guattari exercises therein an explicitly political analysis to problematize the question of payment between analyst and analysand on the grounds that, given the capitalist system of extracting surplus-value, "when the psychoanalyst is paid, he is in fact reproducing a certain process of crushing the patient to adapt him onto personological poles of capitalist society,... implicitly sanctioning a way of using the structures of the family as an instrument to crush desire production and press it into the service of a social order governed by profit" (MR 61). In another essay, "Psychoanalysis and the Struggles of Desire" (1973; MR section 1), as well as in the interview with Arno Munster, "Molecular Revolution and Class Struggle" (1973; MR section 3), Guattari examines the inadequacies of Freudianism's social analysis and of Marxism's analysis of desire. He suggests that despite the trap of bureaucratic centralism in which the workers' revolutionary movement is caught, the struggle for political liberation can and must occur in the same terms as a struggle against the "technique of reductive representation" which characterizes the "Oedipus method," according to which "every situation can be fitted into a system of representation that is expressed in an apparently triangular mode" (MR 70), what Deleuze and Guattari label - in Anti-Oedipus -- the "mommy-daddy-me triad".
As an alternative, Guattari calls for "schizo-analytic politics" which opposes desire expressed in individual terms to a collective enunciation of desire: on the one hand, "in so far as the subject is bound up with a system of representation, the individual libido finds itself dependent on the capitalist machine which forces it to function in terms of a communication based on dualist systems," i.e. imprisonment "in such bi-polar systems as man/woman, child/adult, genital/pre-genital, life/death, etc... subjected to an Oedipalizing reduction of desire to representation" MR 72). This necessitates the "destructive task of schizoanalysis" (cf. AO 311-21), an annihilation of the myth of Oedipus; of ego, superego, guilt, law, castration; of the emphasis on the unconscious as theatrical representation; in short, of the overcoding and social repression of libidinal desire imposed by psychoanalytic mechanisms as factotum of the capitalist system. Therefore, and on the other hand, Guattari proposes a totally different notion; the idea of a collective force, a collective direction of libido to parts of the body, groups of individuals, constellations of objects and intensities, machines of every kind -- thus bringing desire out of that back-and-forth between the Oedipal triangle and its dissolution in the death instinct, and linking it up with ever-wider possibilities of many different kinds that become even more open to the social environment (MR 72). Guattari argues that to the actually schizophrenic and fragmentary character of capitalist society must respond a new socio-political, psychiatric, and critical practice, a collective, multi-disciplinary, multi-strategic approach (that is, the two "positive tasks of schizoanalysis" presented in AO 322-82) to under-mine psychic and social repression and thereby to release flows of desire within art and institutions. The practical means by which these tasks are to be accomplished constitute the direction of Guattari's subsequent writing. \9
3. Molecular Politics
This anti-Oedipal and political offensive is evident in other essays of the 1970s: an autobiographical rejection of Oedipus, "Sepulchre for an Oedipus Complex" (1972; MR, introduction); an attack on the British anti-psychiatric community in "Mary Barnes, or Oedipus in Anti-Psychiatry" (1973; MR section 1); the ambiguity of the political distinction between left and right from the perspective of desire, in "The Micro-Politics of Fascism" (1973; MR, section 3), originally entitled "Micro-politique du desire" in Psychanalyse et politique (Paris: Seuil, 1972); an interview originally published in Le Magazine litteraire, "Anti-Psychiatry and Anti-Psychoanalysis" (1976; MR section 1), in which Guattari explains the anti-Oedipal stance; finally, "Social Democrats and Euro-Communists vis-à-vis the State" (1977; MR section 3), an analysis of the collusion of European socialism and communism with the State structure. However, the most challenging direction which Guattari's writing takes following Anti-Oedipus is his research into developing an extensive semiotic foundation for "schizo-analysis." Even an essay from the early writing, "Causality, Subjectivity and History" (1965; MR section 3) begins with a section in which Guattari poses "the problem of a subject... as one enunciating discourses and actions relating to history, rather than envisaging it simply as the subject of statements which are given to us" (my translation; cf. MR 175). This constitutes a political attack on the "structuralist impasse" from which one can escape "by recognizing that an effect of meaning only has repercussions at the level of the signified in so far as potentialities of subjective action are liberated, once there is a breach in the signifier" (MR 182). To affect such a signifying breakthrough, Guattari opts for a glossematic conception of the sign derived from Hjelmslev's linguistics, and maintains, with Deleuze, that in constituting "a decoded theory of language,... he only linguistics adapted to the nature of both capitalist and the schizophrenic flows," Hjelmslev's conception is preferable to Saussurian syntagmatic linguistics because Hjelmslev's purely immanent theory of language, Deleuze and Guattari assert, is one "that shatters the double gaze of the voice-graphism domination; that causes form and substance, content and expression to flow according to the flows of desire; and that breaks these flows according to point-signs and figure-schizzes" (AO 242-43). \10
A few years later, in the lengthy final section of La Révolution moléculaire entitled "Semiotic Scaffoldings," \11 the importance of Hjelmslev's linguistics becomes quite clear, as the basis on which Guattari can propose a science of machinics, "a system of assembling machinic propositions which is not reducible to logical/mathematical statements and to phenomenological domains" (my translation; cf. MR 146). Guattari seeks to discuss machinic propositions in terms of a linguistics which is neither hierarchizing, nor transcendental. Thus, in this final section's opening essay entitled "Towards a Micro-Politics of Desire" (1975; MR section 1), Guattari objects that "structuralist analyses try to mask the basic duality between content and form by attending only to form, setting the content in parentheses, believing it legitimate to separate work relating to content from work relating to form," thereby ignoring the "specific political and social order that moulds" chains of signifiers, and thereby avoiding "questioning the operations of power that control the social sphere at every level" (MR 82). Since any analysis, be it anthropological, economic, linguistic, or psychoanalytical, must attend to the "multitude of micro-political levels" of power which structure all contents, Guattari rejects analysis which opposes content to form and instead invokes Hjelmslev's linguistics in order to propose an analysis which would 'find connecting points (points d'articulation), points of micro-political antagonism at every level" (MR 83).
Then, offering theoretical physics as an example of a non-signifying semiotics in which sign-particles, unlocalizable in time, space and existence, undermine the sign-referent relationship, Guattari proposes to counter passive acceptance of effects of signification "with a generalized micro-political struggle that can undermine it from within, in such a way as to enable all the intensive multiplicities to escape from the tyranny of the signifying over-encoding. What this means is unleashing a whole host of expressions and experimentations - those of children, of schizophrenics, of homosexuals, of prisoners, of misfits of every kind - that all work to penetrate and eat into the semiology of the dominant order, to feel out new escape routes (lignes de fuite) and produce new and unheard-of constellations of a-signifying particle-signs" (MR 84). By unleashing such cultural expressions, we pass beyond a particular semantic field of interactions (for example, political overcoding) onto an abstract plane of irreducible kernels, or sign-particles (for example, Capital or Power) as means to blur reifying denotations and connotations of the Imaginary. \12
To emphasize the necessity for this struggle, Guattari first examines the role of psychoanalysis in the "dominant order," a politico-religious movement which "should be treated in the same way as all other movements that have proposed models of behaviour for particular times and contexts," whose object is "collective paranoia," that is, "bringing into operation everything that militates against any liberation of schizo desire in the social situation (le socius)" (MR 86). Guattari opposes a "politics of interpretation which keeps going over and over the past in the realm of unconscious phantasy" with a "politics of experimentation that takes hold of existing intensities of desire and forms itself into a desiring mechanism in touch with historical social reality." Such a duality is revealed by "a fundamental political dilemma within one and the same semiotic whole":
"Students of semiotics are already divided into those who relate semiotics to the sciences of language, and those who consider language merely one among other instances of the functioning of a general semiotic. It seems to me that the result of this debate is that, in the first case, desire gets bogged down in the Imaginary by becoming invested in a system of significant flights (fuites signifiantes) which I shall call paradigmatic perversion, whereas, in the second, it participates in a-signifying semiotic engagements (agencements semiotiques a-signifiants), involving signs as well as things, individuals as well as groups, organs as well as forces or machines." (MR 87) \13
Guattari proposes examples of the first form of semiotics, the "paradigmatic perversion", in criticizing behaviorist communication (`a la Bateson), syntactics, semantics and pragmatics a la Carnap and Morris), structuralist anthropology, and other semiotic "mergers": he refers to R.D. Laing as having combined "a linguistic dominated by diachronic phonology and Lacanian psychoanalysis," to Althusser as having merged "the epistemological tradition and Marxism," and to Benveniste as affirming the pre-eminence of linguistic semiology even for nonlinguistic systems (MR 90). Although he does not develop this critique, Guattari suggests that each of these theorists shares a common strategy, "the idea that one must discover a univocal reference point, a transcendant invariable, not itself significative, whereby to explain the sum of the significative arrangements" (MR 89), a position which Guattari sees as tantamount to remaining enmired in the "mystery of signification," remaining prisoners of "a signifying semiological cogito." Since this trap results in defining a mechanism which constrains all possibility for developing new "intersections" with other regimes of signs, it would "provide a reassuring feeling of having at last got hold of something quasi-eternal in the human science" (MR 90), thereby constituting a methodological imprisonment which effectively inscribes the researcher in a new formalism whose scientific rigor" absolves him/her from involvement in the political realm.
In order to distinguish between the various semiotic machines," Guattari proposes and subsequently defines four modes of encoding:
1) non-semiotic "natural" chains of encoding, not involving "a specific semiotic stratum," for example, genetic coding (MR 90);
Two modes of semiologies of signification:
2) those involving a multiplicity of strata, for example, "the expression of primitive societies, of the mad, of children" (MR 91);
3) semiologies with only two strata: one "on which contents are formalized," another "on which expression is formalized"; this illusion of a double articulation is achieved through "flattening out this multiplicity of intensities on the signifying machine by using the fiction of a level of representation," that is, intensities first fitting "signified contents," then fitting "the signifier, whose despotic ambition is to put everything that could represent it through a process of repetition that always brings it back to itself. ... The intensities can now only be noted, connoted as having to remain outside the semiotic sphere, which means, in the last resort, outside the political sphere" (MR 92). This results in "the programme of linguistic Oedipalization":
first, the production of "subjectivity detached from the real, empty and transparent, a subjectivity of pure signifying that responds perfectly to Lacan's formula: a signifier represents it [subjectivity] for another signifier. This subjectivity has to be accounted for under two heads - the subject of the statement and the subject of the utterance of the message. By the effect of a kind of meaningless echoing back and forth, the subject of the message has become the echo of the subject of the utterance. Every utterance must cease being polyvocal and, reduced to a bi-univocal mode, be made to fit the subject of the statement" (MR 92-93);
second, "formalizing the subjectivation of statements according to an abstract encoding of the I-you-he type, which 'provides the speakers with a shared system of personal references' (cf. Benveniste, Problèmes de linguistique générale) and makes them able to adapt to the exchangeability, the transposability and the universality of a given number of roles that they will be called upon to fill within the framework of an economy of de-coded fluxes" (MR 93); \14
4) collective assemblages of a-signifying semiotics, or the dissociation of machinic information from structural representation through "diagrammatization" or "transduction": "No longer are there two levels and a system of double articulation; there is only a constant return to the continuum of machinic intensities based on a pluralism of articulations." The result is the transformation of points of subjectivation as privatized and Oedipalized jouissance" into "subjective residues, a deterritorialized jouissance, adjacent to the fundamental process of machinic assemblage," permitting escape from "the terrain of signification, as correlate of subjective individuation, for the terrain of the machinic plane of consistency, which authorizes the conjunction of meaning and matter by the articulation of abstract machines which are ever more deterritorialized and ever more locked into material flows of all kinds.... In short, the equation 'signified + signifier - signification' occurs from the individuation of fanstasies and from subjugated groups, whereas the equation 'collective arrangements of enunciation - machinic meaning - non-meaning (sens - non-sens machinique) occurs from group fantasy and from the subject-group" (my translation; cf. MR 95-96). \15 Guattari argues then that the scientific, artistic, and political realms are linked in a lattice-work of sign machines which form a direct conjunction with material fluxes. He articulates the bask project of schizo-analysis (as opposed to psychoanalysis and other semiologies of signification) as necessarily developing and practicing modes to release signifying chains from univocal (or bi-univocal) subjectivation and thereby to unleash polyvocal flows of primal intensities in abstract machines.
But Guattari proceeds even further by maintaining that the very "capacity of human societies to escape from alienations territorialized in the ego, the person, the family, the race, the exploitation of labour, distinctions of sex and so on depends on a conjunction between the semiotics of consciousness and those of deterritorializing machinisms" (MR 98; my emphasis). For Guattari, this semiotics of consciousness is at the very heart of all human activity, and as he did in his earlier essay "Machine and Structure," Guattari is suggesting that the machine passes into the heart of desire:
"Human beings make love with signs and all kinds of 'extra-human' elements - things, animals, images, looks, machines and so on - that the sexual functioning of primates, for instance, had never encoded. With its shift to non-signifying semiotics, the subjectivity of the utterance comes to be invested in an organless body (corps sans organes) connected to a multiplicity of desiring intensities. That organless body oscillates between an anti-production that tends to become reterritorialized in residual signification, and a semiotic hyper-production that opens itself to fresh machinic connections.The collective apparatus of utterance (l'agencement collectif d'énonciation) can thus become the centre of immanence for new desiring connections, the point where, beyond humanity, there is production and jouissance by the cosmic fluxes that run through machinisms of every kind." (MR 98)
In other words, Guattari describes, if ever so abstractly,
the practical method for introducing lines of flight, of rupture,
of liberation into daily life. This method, the conjunction of
semiotic, signifying, encoding consciousness with subjective,
decoding multiple connections, consists in recognizing and finding
ways to express the incessant oscillation between
reterritorialization, or reinscription by the psychic and social processes of signification (anti-production), and the complementary, deterritorializing swing toward new connections, toward uninscribed production, pleasure, orgasm, the body expressed in the bodyless, the realization however fleeting and sporadic) of liberating rupture in some collective mode of utterance. Guattari's seemingly far-out, galactic discourse of "cosmic fluxes" is nothing less than an attempt to describe modes of analysis, of politics, of aesthetics, which as yet have no basis for description since their practice is in the very process of creation.
The title of the following section, "Semiotics with *n* articulations," suggests the important function played in Guattari's project by multiplicity, or "intensive multiplicities," which signifying semiotics opposes by reducing these multiplicities to the form/substance couple. To propose an alternate semiotic politics, in which he can "determine under what conditions certain semiotic areas - in sciences, arts, revolution, sexuality, etc. - could be removed from the control of the dominant representations" (MR 100), Guattari develops various terminological distinctions from Hjelmslev's linguistics:
1) a transposition of Hjelmslev's triple division (form,
substance matter) in order to define semiotic strata:
a) abstract machines, or form considered independently of substance;
b) the coupling of substance/form as the mode of actualization of the abstract machines' power to deterritorialize;
c) matter, "considered independently of its signifying semiotic formation," as corresponding henceforth to machinic meaning (rather than to signification), to material intensities (rather than to the signifier as a category in itself), to collective arrangements of enunciation (rather than to individuation of subject based on the primacy of the statement), all of which eliminate the content/expression distinction (MR 100);
2) three types of synthesis previously developed in Anti-Oedipus:
a) connective syntheses, or a mode of "polyvocal connections among machinic fluxes";
b) disjunctive syntheses, controlling, organizing, disciplining' the connective syntheses, both as machinic deterritorialization and structures of re-territorialization;
c) conjunctive syntheses which 'define the status of subjectivation" (MR 101).
Guattari suggests that "with the a-signifying semiotics,
one breaks through the impasse belonging to processes of signifying
encoding, an impasse which consisted 1) in cutting off production
from representation; 2) in isolating and neutralizing the continuum
of 'material productions,' by alienating it into two formalisms
of signifying representation: the formalism of content and the
formalism of expression. The double articulation sort of sandwiches
(prend en quelque sorte en sandwich) the intensive multiplicities"
(my translation, RM 268; omitted from MR). Guattari claims therefore
that the "expression of machinic meaning" through the
"expressive duality -- matter/abstract machine" replaces
the old subjectivizing couples signifier/signified and substance/form:
"We are abandoning the formal classifications of semiotic
components in order to consider, above all, the connection (montage),
the assemblage that they constitute as function of particular
regimes of deterritorialization of flows.... The assemblages of
deterritorialized flows of electrons, of flows of signs, of experimental
combinations, of logical machines, etc., combine to give a full
expansion of deterritorializing conjunctions and liberate the
abstract machines from the imperialism of signifying strata"
(my translation; cf. MR 102). Guattari thus proposes a "semiotic
option," the "logical" result of liberating signifying
semiotics from the despotism of signifiers and of unleashing "intensive
multiplicities" through a semiotics of *n* articulations.
This liberated semiotics may be enacted through an interconnecting,
stratified grid of different signifying regimes in the seemingly
endless process of decoding/recoding, of deterritorialization/reterritorialization,
a transversality through which these machinic conjunctions will
Finally, after examining the ideological impact of this new semiotic assemblage of enunciation (in the section entitled "The Power Relationships within the Utterance"), Guattari concludes this opening analysis with "The Role of the Signifier in the Institution." This essay is an ambitious attempt to sum up Hjelmslev's categories in terms of the tripartite classification already suggested.\17 In contrast to institutional analyses, Guattari defines the goals of "schizo-analysis": "It seeks to foster a semiotic poly-centrism by assisting the formation of relatively autonomous and non-translatable semiotic substances, by equally welcoming the sense and the non-sense of desire, by not seeking to adapt the modes of subjectivation to the dominant significations and social laws.... I wish to condemn psychoanalysis only on behalf of a different kind of analysis, a micro-political analysis which would never - at least never deliberately - let itself be cut off from the real or the social, on behalf, in other words, of a veritable practice of analysis" (my translation; cf. MR 78).
Guattari presents examples of institutional strategies - the use of psychotropic drugs, the care of the psychotic child - to show how they tend "to reduce the horizon of desire to the control of the other, the appropriation of bodies and organs," whereas "schizo-analysis, on the other hand, rejects the 'will to identity,' and all signifying personological specifications, especially those relating to the family" (MR 80). Having again denounced the "psychoanalytic politics of emasculation of desire" which properly belongs to "power formations," to a "capitalism" which prescribes the dominant norm for accession to jouissance (for example, Kafka's bureaucratic perverts), Guattari concludes by opposing the two options in the economy of desire (a conclusion omitted from MR: a guilty jouissance, "desire having no other direction than to invest itself on its own movement of flight, and on a system of indefinite translatability which constitutes desire's most deterriorialized modality," in short, "a black hole effect" which entirely absorbs desire; and "a collective economy of desire" which schizo-analysis initiates, an economy which "reabsorbs the points of individuation of the libidinal economy, the points of guilt-producing responsibilization, the exclusive transfers which throw desire back on persons, on roles, on the hierarchy and all that is organized around points of significance of power" (RM 289-90). For Guattari, this economy consists of assuring that the "a-signifying semiotic components" continue to produce intensive multiplicities, the machine production of deterritorialization/reterritorialization which prevents the ultimate domination of flows of desire by the avatars of signifying semiology. \18
4. "Mecanosphere": Schizoanalysis and the "Global" Molecule
While Guattari devotes the one hundred and forty pages of "Semiotic Scaffoldings to condemning structuralizing modes of interpretation and to developing numerous concepts of "schizo-analysis," there are but a few sections of La Révolution moléculaire in which he provides actual examples and results of such an approach: the untranslated essays included in the section entitled "le Cinema: Un Art Mineur" (Cinema: A Minor Art), particularly "Les cinémachines désirantes" (Desiring Cinemachines), offer a fruitful glimpse at schizo-analysis applied to one form of artistic expression, the mostly untranslated essays subtitled "Devenir enfant, voyou, pédé..." (Becoming Child, Punk, Gay...) all reveal some aspect of the concept of "becoming" elaborated in "Concrete Machines" (cf. MR 154-62). \19
This essay and another, "Becoming a Woman" (1975; MR, section 3), already announce the next phase of Guattari's work, that of completing the elaboration of the schizo-analytic concepts and simultaneously putting them into practice. For example, Guattari defines "concrete machines" as the mode of authority used by the strata of power (for example, the capitalistic system) "to tolerate, and to turn to its own advantage, the lines of escape (lignes de fuite) inherent in the development of productive forces and the de-territorialization of production relations" (MR 156). In other words, Guattari calls for "a politics of inter-stratification" which functions in one manner or another:
"Either an action will close in and become stratified, or it will open out onto diagrammatic lines of escape [lignes de fuite]. The concrete machine opens up the possible, either in the form of signifying circles, centred perhaps on the features of faciality, or in the form of post-signifying spirals that let the lines of escape go off at a tangent. In the worst case, the concrete machine develops heavy, figurative territorialities, operating on at least two dimensions; in the second, it disperses a de-territorialized line in particle signs that tend to elude the dimensions of time and space altogether." (MR 157) \20
This inter-stratic process, the possibilities of concretization or of liberation of flows, is a 'becoming' which Guattari calls visagéité (faciality) and which functions "to enable the system to gain semiotic control of individuals, to connect them with a decoded flux of work.... Capitalist faciality always exists to serve a signifying formula; it is the means whereby the signifier takes control, the way it organizes a certain mode of individuated subjectivation, and the collective madness of a machine that creates consciousness without any content, and of a becoming that cannot be perceived" (MR 162). \21
Likewise, Guattari proposes the term "becoming-woman" or in molecular opposition to the molar definition of homosexuality as perversion. Whereas the libido on the social body is identified as being male, phallocratic, and binarizing all values, on the sexual body the libido "is engaged in a becoming-woman.... It's because it is not too far from the binarism of phallic power that becoming-woman can play this intermediary role, this role as mediator in relation to other sexed becomings" (my translation; cf. MR 234). Rather than defining some "eternal feminine," Guattari insists that "becoming-woman" manifests itself in numerous modes as the necessary step for an individual to break with "the phallic rat race inherent in all power formations" and to move on to subsequent forms of becoming: "becoming-animal, cosmos, letter, color, music" (MR 234).
Two years after the publication of this collection of essays, Guattari continued his elaboration of schizo-analytic concepts with the untranslated L'inconscient machinique, essais de schizo-analyse (The Machinic Unconscious, Essays on Schizo-analysis). \22 However, in Molecular Revolution, the reader is left to guess what the subsequent direction of Guattari's work might be on the basis of two essays. On the one hand, in a set of notes "on minority thinking" entitled "Plans for the Planet," \23 he outlines several hypotheses for the development of world economic and social relations. Here, he calls for resistance to "integrated world capitalism" through the "proliferation of marginal groups," i.e. the micro-political struggle which he had previously proposed and in which he was directly involved into the early 1980s on behalf of the Italian autonomia movement.
On the other hand, the final essay of Molecular Revolution,
"Capitalistic Systems, Structures and Process," co-authored
by Eric Alliez \24 is an outline of a project of analyzing capitalist
"semiotization" and six modes of "capitalist valorization,"
which are here examined from the perspective of the relationships
among each dominant economic semiotic "cluster":
-- the "Priorities of the Market" (Commercial proto-capitalism, world economies centered on a network of Cities; liberal capitalism);
-- the "Priorities of the State" (Asiatic mode of production, Nazi-type war economy; State capitalism); and
-- the "Priorities of Production" (Colonial monopoly economy; integrated world capitalism).
While this essay certainly can stand alone on the strength of its analytical clarity, readers attentive to the development of the schizo-analytic project will also identify its theoretical bases, already present in Anti-Oedipus (particularly, chapter 3), but enhanced by the refined conceptual apparatus presented in L'inconscient machinique and Mille plateaux, which aims at nothing less than a global analysis of what Deleuze and Guattari call the "mecanosphere" or machinic universe.
As the "only game in town" for anglophone readers
[NB: and now (1994/2002) no longer so since MR is out of print]
interested in exploring the mind which is just as responsible
for "schizo-analysis" as Gilles Deleuze, the translations
collected in Molecular Revolution are the starting point for considering
Guattari's original and challenging mode of reflection. However,
my ambivalence toward this edition should be quite evident: theobjectionable
editorial choices and weaknesses in translations are a result,
at best, of a poor understanding of the linguistic, philosophical,
psychoanalytic, and political implications of Guattari's overall
project. Thus, the time has not yet come [NB: still true in the
mid-1990s!/early 2000s!] when Anglo-American readers can fully
judge the importance of "schizo-analysis" and "micro-politics"
for contemporary thought. But if Guattari's recent work is any
indication of present and future directions, \25 the time has
certainly come for recognizing what his analyses may offer us
for escaping the impasses of post-capitalism,
post-Marxism and post-structuralism.
1/ For an extensive bibliography on the works of Deleuze and Guattari, see SubStance 44/45 (1984). A new translation of Deleuze's Kant's Critical Philosophy, not included in the bibliography, has recently been published by the University of Minnesota Press,1984.
2/ All references to Molecular Revolution: Psychiatry and Politics will be abbreviated in the text MR.
3/ For example, "Transversality," in section 1, certainly constitutes a search for "New Vocabulary"; "Towards a Micro-Politics of Desire," again, in section 1, clearly applies to "Politics and Desire." In my references to these essays, I will indicate in which section they are located.
4/ Readers should be attentive to various discrepancies between the Penguin translation and terminology chosen in other translations particularly in the Hurley, et. al., translation of Anti-Oedipus: for example, groupes assujettis and groupes-sujets, translated in Anti-Oedipus as "subjugated groups" and "subject-groups", are rendered inconsistently in MR both as "dependent groups" and "independent groups" and as "subjugated groups' and "subject groups" (as in the "Glossary," MR 288-90). See Patton [I&C 8, 1981] for a discussion of terminological difficulties in translations of Deleuze and Guattarl.
5/ "I think it convenient to distinguish, in groups, between the 'manifest content' -- that is, what is said and done, the attitudes of the different members, the schisms, the appearance of leaders, of aspiring leaders, scapegoats and so on - and the 'latent content', which can be discovered only by interpreting the various escapes of meaning (ruptures de sens) in the order of phenomena. We may define this latent content as group desire': in the order of phenomena. We may define this latent content as group desire': it must be articulated with the group's specific form of love and death instincts (un ordre pulsionnel d'Eros et de mort)" (MR 15).
6/ It is disappointing that several other essays in PT from this initial period are not included in MR. In his introduction to the translation, David Cooper states that "the selection of articles in this book omits a number of pieces, all of them interesting but having many local references directed at a French public" (3). This criterion would also apply to several articles which are included, and some of the essays omitted have general, and not merely local, significance: for example, in "Les neuf thèses de l'Opposition de gauche" ("The Nine Theses on Leftist Opposition," 1966), Guattari presents his first concise political analysis, which he subsequently revises and develops in "Extraits de discussions: fin juin 1968" ('Excerpts from discussions, end of June 196'); "D'un signe à l'autre" ("From one sign to the other," 1966) is both a response to the prevailing Lacanian psychoanalytical heterodoxy and a first sketch of the semiotic theory which Guattari develops in subsequent periods.
7/ Deleuze has discussed in several texts the importance of this collaboration for his work. In "I Have Nothing To Admit," he explains: "And, then, there was my meeting Félix Guattari, the way we got along and completed, depersonalized, singularized each other - in short how we loved. That resulted in Anti-Oedipus which marked a new progression. I wonder whether one of the formal reasons for the hostile reception the book occasionally encounters isn't precisely that we worked it out together, depriving the public of the quarrels and ascriptions it loves. So, they try to untangle what is indiscernible or to determine what belongs to each of us. But since everyone, like everyone else, is multiple to begin with, that makes for quite a lot of people" (113). Later, in Dialogues, Deleuze further develops the impact of this collaboration: "I was trying in my preceding books to describe a certainexercise of thought, but describing it was still not the same as exercising thought in that way.... So with Félix, it all became possible, even if we failed. We were only two, but what counted for us was less working together than this strange fact of working between the two. We ceased being 'author'. And this between-the-two connected with other people, different on either side. The desert grew, but while getting more and more populated.... I ripped off Félix, and I hope he did the same with me" (23-24; my translation). On their individual backgrounds, see my introduction to SubStance 44/45 (1984).
8/ See Deleuze's Difference et repetition (7) and Logique du sens (63). Guattari gives the following example to distinguish "structure" from "machine": "The history of technology is dated by the existence at each stage of a particular type of machine; the history of the sciences is now reaching a point, in all its branches, where every scientific theory can be taken as a machine rather than a structure, which relates it to the order of ideology. Every machine is the negation, the destroyer of incorporation (almost to the point of excretion), of the machine it replaces. And it is potentially in a similar relationship to the machine that will take its place" MR 112).
9/ See the bibliography in SubStance 44145 (1984) for notable studies, in English and in French, of this schizo-analytic project.
10/ Deleuze and Guattari also argue that "Louis Hjelmslev's linguistics stand in profound opposition to the Saussurian and post-Saussurian undertaking. Because it abandons all privileged reference. Because it describes a pure field d algebraic immanence that no longer allows any surveillance on the part of a transcendent instance, even one that has withdrawn. Because within this field it sets in motion its flows of form and substance, content and expression. Because it substitutes the relationship of reciprocal precondition between expression and content for the relationship of subordination between signifier and signified. Because there no longer occurs a double articulation between two hierarchized levels of language, but between two convertible deterritorialized planes, constituted by the relation between the form of content and the form of expression. Because in this relation one reaches figures that are no longer effects of a signifier, but schizzes, point-signs, or flow-breaks that collapse the wall of the signifier, pass through, and continue on beyond. Because these signs have crossed a new threshold of deterritorialization. Because these figures have definitively lost the minimum conditions of identity that defined the elements of the signifier itself. Because in Hjelmslev's linguistics the order of the elements is secondary in relation to the axiomatic of flows and figures. Because the money model in the point-sign, or in the figure-break stripped of its identity, having now only a floating identity, tends to replace the model of the game" (AO 242).
11/ The distribution of this group of essays is the most disturbing aspect of MR. Although Guattari did in fact publish these articles over several years (between 1973 and 1977) and in different publications, their arrangement together in La Revolution moleculaire certainly indicates an important attempt by Guattari to consolidate the disparate elements of his theoretical work. In MR, however, the reader has no inkling of the connection between these texts given their seemingly random dispersion as well as several omissions. The following order is established by Guattari in RM, with each essay's location in MR:
1: "Towards a Micro-Politics of Desire" (six sections
in RM): in MR, five of the six sections appear as the final essay
in part 1, with the sixth section, "The Role of the Signifier
in the Institution," published as an independent essay preceding
the ensemble of essays at the and of which it appears in RM;
2: "La valeur, la monnaie, le symbole" (Value, Money, Symbol): omitted from MR;
3: "Meaning and Power": published as the seventh and final essay of MR part 2;
4: "The Plane of Consistency: published as the second essay of MR part 2;
5: "La conscience diagrammatique" (Diagramatic Consciousness): omitted from MR;
6: "Intensive Redundancies and Expressive Redundancies": published as the third essay of MR part 2;
7: "Subjectless Action" (original title: "Il et moi-je"): published as the fourth essay of MR part 2;
8: "Machinic Propositions": published as the fifth essay of MR part 2;
9: "Concrete Machines": published as the sixth essay MR part 2;
10: "Millions and Millions of Potential Alices": published as the fifth essay of MR part 3.
12/ In chapter three of L'inconscient machinique, Guattari defines the fundamental machinic coordinates for assemblages of utterances and situates the concepts of abstract machines and sign-particles as the third of three general types of "consistency" from which assemblages emerge, the first being molar, the second molecular (43-73; see below, note 22).
13/ Guattari explains the operation of this "paradigmatic perversion": "The politics of the signifier lead to a sign machine marking out the territorialized fluxes - by means of a limited collection of discrete, 'digitalized' signs - and retaining only fluxes of information that can be decoded. The role of that sign machine is to produce, in Hjelmslev's term, 'semiotically formed substances', that is to say strata of expression which form a connection between the two domains formalized at the level of expression and that of content; for linguistic analysts, this operation produces an effect of signification. The totality of intensive reality is then 'processed' by the formalizing duo, signifier/signified; the totality of fluxes is held in the 'snapshot' ("flash") of signification which places an object facing a subject; the movement of desire is sterilized by a relationship of representation; the image becomes the memory of a reality made impotent, and its immobilization establishes the world of dominant significations and received ideas. This operation of controlling all the intensive multiplicities constitutes the first act of political violence. The relation between the signifier and the signified (which Peirce sees as conventional, Saussure as arbitrary) is at root merely the expression of authority by means of signs" (MR 87-88).
14/ In "Subjectless Action," Guattari develops in detail his objections to structuralist linguistics; in "Value, Money, Symbol," he expands on the modes of encoding in terms of exchange value, use value, and intensive values of desire (RM 291-96); and in "Meaning and Power," he examines the modes of encoding in light of the semiotics of clinical psychiatric practices. See Seem in regard to modes of encoding.
15/ In "The Plane of Consistency," Guattari defines the "machinic phylum" as a continuum, and then examines it in terms of 'the mathematical physical complex, technical innovation and the military machine" (MR 121).
16/ In "The Diagrammatic Consciousness," Guattari raises questions about the Lacanian "subject-object system" in terms of the processes of machinic deterritorialization of the "modern" consciousness (RM 329-31); in "Intensive Redundancies and Expressive Redundancies," he discusses stratification of the modes of encoding as well as various forms of deterritorialization; and in "Concrete Machines," he proposes different strata for abstract machines.
17/ In "Machinic Propositions," Guattari sums up the nonhierarchizable propositions of a science of machinics.
18/ In "Millions and Millions of Potential Alices," Guattari puts this collective economy of desire into practice on behalf of the Italian "free radio" movement.
19/ Both the essay "J'ai même rencontré des travelos heureux" (I Have Even Met Happy Travellos) and "Becoming-Woman" are translated in "Polysexuality" Semiotext(e) 4.1 (1981). On problems which this concept of "becoming-woman" poses for feminist studies, see Jardine.
20/ Guattari provides some interesting exampes of this process: "Consider the practice of transcendental meditation so fashionable in the United States: we may find it developing into an organless body opening desire out onto an a-signifying world, or, equally, clos-ing in upon a signifying activity that alienates the individuals in line with the values of authority. In most cases, transcendental mediators are doing both things at once.... In Hitler's fascism, for in-stance, at a molar level, there were concrete machines - military, police, aesthetic, etc. - managing the conjunction of a longstanding, indeed an archaic, stratified authority with abstract machines that were still 'feeling their way' along highly de-territorialized paths: thus such modern themes as State capitalism and science came paradoxically to be associated with completely regressive ideas like 'rapacious Jews taking over the world', 'purity of blood' and so on. Similarly, we can see the conjunction between Stalin, the little father of the people, Ivan the Terrible, and the running of a bureaucratic planned State. The concrete machines metabolize the conjunction of semiotic, material and social fluxes independently of the relationships of causality or genealogy that may belong to the various strata redundancies" (MR 157).
21/ In discussing how he and Guattari worked together, Gilles
Deleuze has elaborated the derivation of the concept of "faciality":
"Félix was working on black holes; this notion from
astronomy fascinates him. The black hole is what captures you
and doesn't let you go.... Meanwhile, I was working on a white
wall: what is a _white wall_, a screen, how can one smooth out
a wall, and let a line of flight pass through? We didn't join
the two notions, we noticed that each tended toward the other
by itself, but precisely to produce something that
wasn't in either one. So black holes on a white wall is precisely a face, a wide face with white cheeks, pierced with black eyes, it doesn't yet resemble a face, it's rather the assemblage or the abstract machine which is going to produce a face. Suddenly the problem rebounds, politically: what do societies, civilizations need to make this machine function, that is, need to produce, to 'overcode' the entire body and head with a face, and for what purpose? It's not a given, the face of the loved one, of the boss, the facialization of the physical and social body... That's a multiplicity, with at least three dimensions, astronomical, aesthetic, political.... We use deterritorialized terms, that is, torn from their field, in order to reterritorialize another notion, the 'face,' 'faciality' as a social function" Dialogues 24-25;my translation).
22/ Guattari points out that although he composed this study alone, "these essays are inseparable from the work that Gilles Deleuze and I have been carrying on for several years.... Cf. our book in collaboration, Mille plateaux" (15). While an examination of this second volume of Capitalism and Schizophrenia is impossible here, Guattari and Deleuze elaborate the schizo-analytic concepts as related to the domains of psychoanalysis, ethics, linguistics, pragmatics and semiotics, literature, music, politics, ethnology, technology, mathematics, physics, and aesthetics. For essays related to Mille plateaux, see SubStance 44/45 (1984) [and SubStance 66 (1992)].
Guattari explains the organization of L'inconscient rnachinique in the introduction: after situating various problems and terms in an introductory "synthetic glossary of a few essential conclusions," he presents six chapters and two annexes:
"- some questions of a linguistic and semiotic order whose examination appeared to me essentially preliminary to any review of the theory of the unconscious and especially the way the problem of pragmatics is presently being addressed": chapter 2, "Sortir de la langue" (Leaving Language);
"- some questions relating to assemblages of enunciation and to pragmatic fields considered from the angle of unconscious phenomena in the social field": chapter 3, "Agencements d'enonciation, transformations et champs pragmatiques" (Assemblages of enunciation, transformations and pragmatic fields);
"- two fundamental categories of redundancies of the machinic unconscious: the traits of faciality and refrains": chapter 4, "Visagéité signifiante, visagéité diagrammatique" (Signifying Faciality, Diagrammatic Faciality), and chapter 5, "Le temps des ritournelles" (The Time of Refrains);
"- the bases on which we can construct a schizo-analytic pragmatic, bases which are irreducible in relation to political and micro-political problems": chapter 6, "Repères pour une schizo-analyse" (Reference Points for a Schizo-Analysis);
"- a machinic genealogy' of the aggregate of semiotic entities presented throughout this work and which, to me, seem capable of functioning in the framework of a pragmatic that would no longer be in the exclusive province of linguistics and semiotics": chapter 7, "Annexe. La traversée moléculaire des signes" (Annex. The molecular crossing of signs);
"- the trajectory of traits of faciality and of refrains in the work of Marcel Proust": "Les ritoumelles du Temps Perdu" (The Refrains of Lost Time).
23/ This essay also appears in translation as "The Proliferation of Margins," in "Italy: Autonomia," Semiotext(e) 3. 3 (1980).
24/ This essay appears in the first issue of Change International (Fall 1983), of which Guattari was a member of the editorial group. In some ways, this quarterly is a journal of schizo-analysis and micro-politics, as revealed by certain "letters" of its introductory "Alphabet du Change International": "Flows, a thousand images, a thousand meanings. Between the points, between the fields. Without visible end... Nomadism... Resisting and deterritorializing. Resisting the ebb... Zero: the zero point where we are. In order to invent. In the word, in the body, in things. *The play which changes alphabets*" (2-3).
25/ Guattari has recently indicated that he will soon be publishing three new books: a new collection of essays entitled Les annees d'hiver (The Years of Winter), a book on political theory co-authored with Toni Negri entitled Les nouveaux espaces de la liberté) (New Spaces of Freedom [Communists Like Us, Trans. Michael Ryan, New York: Semiotext(e), 1990]), and an essay on his experience with schizoanalysis in clinical practice [published as Cartographies schizoanalytiques (Schizoanalytic Cartographies); see also his final works, Les trois écologies [(Paris: Galilée, 1989; The Three Ecologies, London: Athlone, 2000), and Chaosmose, Paris: Galilée, 1992 (Chaosmosis: An Ethico-aesthetic Paradigm, Trans. Paul Bains and Julian Pefanis, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1995)].
Deleuze, Gilles. Différence et répétition.
Paris: P.U.F., 1968.
___ Logique du sens. Paris: Minuit, 1969.
___ "I Have Nothing To Admit." "Anti-Oedipus." Semiotext(e) 2.3 (1977): 111-116.
___ and Félix Guattari. L'Anti-Oedipe: Capitalisme et Schizophrénie 1. Paris: Minuit, 1972. Anti-Oedipus, Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane. New York: Viking, 1977, and Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.
___ and Félix Guattari. Mille Plateaux: Capitalisme et Schizophrénie, Il. Paris: Minuit, 1980. Trans. Brian Massumi. University of Minnesota Press, 1987.
___ and Claire Parnet. Dialogues. Paris: Flammarion, 1977.
*** [Genosko, Gary, ed. The Guattari Reader. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell 1996.]
Guattari, Felix. La Révolution moléeculaire. Fontenay-sous-Bois: Recherches, 1977.
___ L'inconscient machinique, essais de schizo-analyse. Fontenay-sous-Bois: Recherches, 1979.
___ Molecular Revolution: Psychiatry and Politics. Trans. Rosemary Sheed. Middlesex and New York: Penguin Books, 1984.
___ Psychanalyse et Transversalité. Paris: Maspero, 1972.
***[_____ Chaosophy. Ed. Sylvère Lotringer. New York: Semiotext(e), 1995.]
***[_____ Soft Subversions. Ed. Sylvère Lotringer. New York: Semiotext(e), 1996.]
Hjelmslev, Louis. Essais Linguistiques. Paris: Minuit, 1971.
___ Prolégomènes à une théorie du langage. Paris: Minuit, 1968.
Jardine, Alice. "Woman in Limbo: Deleuze and his Br(others)." SubStance 44/45 (1984),46-60.
Patton, Paul. "Notes for a Glossary." I & C 8 (1981), 41-48.
Seem, Mark D. "Interview with Guattari." Diacritics 4 (Fall 1984), 38-41.
Charles J. Stivale
Wayne State University